Talk:Mirror test/Archive 1

http
http://www.jhu.edu/~newslett/05-3-01/Science/2.html claims " The "mirror test" was devised in 1970by Dr. Gordon G. Gallup Jr., a professor of psychology at the State University of New York at Albany." however the animal cognition article says "The best known research technique in this area is the mirror test devised by Donald Griffin". I'm not sure which is correct.


 * I am pretty certain that Gallup developed the test patrickw 17:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I propose...
that we cover a dog in an odourless solvent, and imprint the dog onto a wall. Then we can see whether the dog recognises its own scent
 * how do you know if it recognizes it? But I think it would be cool to find a way to see if dogs are self-aware. I want to believe my dog is. That stupid mirror test discrimnates against dogs!
 * Record a dog's bark and play it back?

Gorilla
If one gorilla (Koko) passes the mirror test, would it not be logical to infer that gorillas in general are self-aware? How many positive mirror tests does it take to classify a species as self-aware? --Bk0 (Talk) 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * this sounds reasonable to me. Can you offer a citation for Koko passing the test? patrickw 12:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Proof.Good work Koko! You're a tribute to your species. JeffyP 20:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because I can do multiply 10 digit numbers in my head doesn't mean that all humans can. I don't have any evidence but "Surprisingly, gorillas have not passed the test," from the article seems to indicate that some gorillas have failed? Which would just mean that Koko is a Stephen Hawking or someone like that...?
 * You were taught to multiply. Self-awareness is an attribute of an entirely different nature.  I don't know that Koko's single instance is enough to pass gorillas in general, but your analogy is not applicable. - Slow Graffiti 06:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * that is a good question, though. if there is one special individual that can figure something out, does that mean that "the species can"? re the gorillas, although the article now mentions this answer, i'll repeat that i read yesterday but have already forgotten where that a likely reason gorillas don't do well on the mirror test is because unlike the other apes that do well, they associate eye contact with aggressive threat and therefore look away from their reflection rather than study it and figure it out. the article went on to suggest that koko, being raised by people rather than gorillas, didn't have this problem. but it also cited baboons as a similar species, and a posting here (see below) takes the opposite position. that article on Koko cited just above, which is amazing to read, btw, doesn't come up with that answer, though. Gzuckier (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like most gorillas do not pass the test but one, or maybe a few, do. The article should reflect (no pun intended) this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw the mirror test on an article on @discovery.ca (later called Daily Planet) on Discovery Channel Canada where they tested 3 zoo gorillas; the young juvenile wanted to play with the gorilla in the "window", but a adolescent female and the silver-back both recognized themselves in the mirror and started grooming themselves. They showed other zoo animals being tested but only recall the dolphins passing the test.  I do not know where to find the video now so such a claim would be unreferenced, so I am not adding it to the Wikipedia article, but if anyone could find it, that would be great. Nutster (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Gorillas easily identify themselfs on a video screen, if the camera takes the pictures at such an angle the gorilla can't have direct eye contact with the eyes on the video screen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.84.104 (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Dubious
IMHO the mirror test is as much a test of whether the animal in question understands what a mirror is. (I.e. that it is a device that enables one to see oneself.) Which has nothing to do with whether the animal understands what it itself is. Relatedly, why should the animal be expected to recognise itself, if it doesn't already know what it looks like and isn't familiar with how mirrors work? Ben Finn 19:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Because an intelegent animal will learn how a mirror works by watching how its reflection changes as it moves.
 * -- Jeff 04:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Intelligence and self-awarenes are two different things.Errorneous 20:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * very good point, imho.Gzuckier (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Many wild animals would encounter something similar to a mirror in pools of water that they drink from. So reflections are not completely alien to wild animals.  Of course, they do not understand the relationship of optics to the situation.  But this just means they don't have any basis for discriminating whether or not any surface might have a reflection property.  The way they recognize that the image is themselves is because of its perfect mimicry of motion.  The parts of their body that they can see (their forelimbs for example) would have very exact patterns of fur as their own.  From these clues, they can deduce that the image is of themself, if they actually have a concept of self.   Which is the point of the whole test.  Qed (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Pigeons
I know someone's gonna argue that Pigeons couldn't possibly pass this test. Hereis the proof. I'm as surprised as you are. JeffyP 20:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you train a pigeon to locate a blue dot in a mirror, then to peck at a blue dot. Aren't you just effectively demonstrating that a pigeon can be taught how to use a mirror to locate a blue dot to peck at?  I fail to see how this would demonstrate that the pigeon can recognize that the dot is actually on themselves.  As a test for a contrapositive, one would need to design a test where a pigeon is taught to peck at a blue dot on other pigeons, if then presented with a mirror, the bird were to peck at the blue dot reflection in the mirror, and not on itself, then it would be a nullification of the positive test presented above.  As I see it, this would demonstrate that the bird simply performs what ever actions it is taught to perform.  I would personally expect that to sucessfully pass the mirror test, that an animal/person would have to spontaneously, and without any foretraining, or instruction react to the stimulus on themselves in the mirror.  Raise a pigeon around a mirror, thus establishing that it's comfortable with the mirror, then spontaneously present it with a blue dot on itself that it cannot see.  If it responds to the image in the mirror, then it fails, and if it responds to the dot on itself, then it passes. --131.107.0.73 23:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your test would be unnecessarily demanding, since none of the "passing" animals did anything besides locate a blue dot they saw in a mirror. (No passing animals were trained to distinguish between dots on themselves and dots on other animals). You're absolutely right that the study as it stands fails to prove self-awareness, just suggests that the subjects can understand reflectivity. I think you stumbled onto Skinner's very point. --Thomas B&#9816; talk 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The article suggests criticism of the Skinner study, but doesn't actually cite any. I'm sure it's out there somewhere, but I couldn't find the reference. I guess I should put a "citation needed" tag up. --Thomas B&#9816; talk 02:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

i used to have a pigeon so im not all that surprised. anyway, here is additional information which mark pigeons as superior to 3 year old humans http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080613145535.htm anyone feel like updating the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.20.49 (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Parrots
Parrots (Alex (parrot)) are known to be very intelligent. Do they pass the test ? Perhaps a section with some species that don't pass the test would be interesting.
 * Just my own insight, but I highly doubt parrots, as intelligent as they are, would be able to understand that its reflection is not another bird. I know for smaller birds, such as parakeets, mirrors are used to "keep the bird company" as it thinks it's looking at another bird.
 * I'm equally intrigued as to the test result of cats. - Slow Graffiti 06:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm curious too, as my cat has recently discovered mirrors, and now constantly sits in front of it so she can see when the other cats try to sneak up on her. I thought she was staring at herself at first, until I watched her use it to find the other cat (who thought she wasn't looking).  Maybe not self-aware, but definitely realizes that the OTHER cat in the mirror corresponds to the other cat in the room.
 * Kea (New Zealand parrot) passes with ease, AFAIK, and this is demonstrated frequently for 'larfs'. They're in the Bird Intelligence article, but not mentioned in its mirror test subsection. I call total BS on the mirror test anyway, so have little incentive to add a reference. For many species, including humans to some extent, it's instinctive not to stare at another individual for too long, and vastly more unnatural to stare at one's self in the face. Apart from reflections in nature, and the human inventions of the mirror and front-facing camera, the idea is nuts. Also if cats are aware of how the reflected image works and can see themselves in it and retain an ongoing low level of interest in it, why are they so at ease with it (after a short and usually humorous introductory period)? 222.152.213.11 (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about parrots but magpies have been proven to pass the mirror test and should be added to the list. http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLF67694120080819 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.60.87 (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Magpies are already there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering why Parrots are down as fail when their the only species known to have asked an existential question. 82.45.2.176 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Alex's supposed existential question was not part of any experimental protocol, and is hard to prove or disprove. Moreover, Alex was heavily trained and habituated, and never underwent the classical test (which made sense; Alex was a very expensive test subject). Other parrots have been given the test and failed. Titanium Dragon  (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Dogs
Whoever these researchers are need their heads examined. My dog was fooled once by the mirror when she was a month old(barking at it and such), probably like any being would be if it had never seen one before. After that first time she watches people in the mirror in relation to herself and will get out of the way if she sees that she is in the way through the mirror. She also will move her ears back and tilt her head in anticipation when she sees you are about to pet her(the hand just about to touch her head that she can see through the mirror only); thus, she clearly understands that it is herself in the mirror. Same if you suddenly throw food behind her, she knows right where it is. Same if she sees a mouse. In fact her ability to use the mirror with such ease for observation and targeting is better than mine, which falls in line with what I believe to be better spacial perception by dogs than humans. I think we underestimate the raw intelligence of animals in general. The difference really lies in abstract thought and our language abilities that stem from that. They use dye? Not all animals are going to care about that! My Dog doesn't care when she gets a drastic haircut in the summer! - John 0905, 29 June 2006 (EST)

-- I did an experiment with my dog, daubing some paint on her, and then we went for a walk and played around for an hour so as to ensure she had forgotten about the daub of paint on her forhead. I then took her to the wall mirror and straight away out came the back leg trying to knock the paint off. Seems she passed it perfectly. I'm not sure at all what value this test has 124.178.173.81 (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the experiment fails to take in to account how quickly an animal "learns" what a mirror is used for. If it was presented the mirror only once, it's likely that only a few animals understood its utility right away, while others probably figured it out after a period of trial and error.  Apes and other highly adaptable animals are keen to use tools and probably just figure the mirror out sooner, whereas animals like dogs would first do a "double-take" by confirming what a mirror does through other senses such as smelling and hearing.  Afterall, your reflection doesn't smell like or sound like you do.  I think some people have already mentioned the bias against animals who aren't primarily vision oriented.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Never spent that much time or effort seeing how my Dog reacted to the mirror, and it's far too late to do any further testing. I do remember her barking at it, at first, as a puppy.  Eventually she seemed to figure it out and more or less ignored it.  But then, she was more interested in getting attention and/or food than in trying to check herself out in a Mirror, generally.  At least when I or my father were around, heh.  -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is a slavery thing; a dog passes the test and we be would slavers--Demomoer (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen a cat spar with its own image. Does it know that the reflected cat is itself and is thus harmless? Or has it simply learned that nothing ever comes out of a mirror? Pbrower2a (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Baboons
Baboons are actually one of the few monkey species that can recognize themselves in the mirror. Anyone who has seen a good baboon documentry would know that. One documentry showed the baboon's keen interest with themselves in old thrown away mirrors. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I can't find an exact article on it but it was in a documentry. Zachorious 08:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * the article I was just reading yesterday and of course I've forgotten where, about the mirror test, cited baboons as another species like gorillas, that flunks the mirror test because they associate eye contact with aggression. Gzuckier (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Gallup nickname
Anon user 82.24.198.45 had renamed the professor Gordon 'The Gorilla' Gallup. I see no mention of such a nickname in his wikipedia article and this page is the only google result for "gordon the gorilla gallup". I removed it. Mwillia9 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The most asinine test of consciousness around!
Seriously! There is no way yet to prove it, but this test is the most misguided one ever! Humans are so self-indulged, and whoever designed this test obviously has no philosophical knowledge, or at least none that they put to use! The question of consciousness is, as of writing this, is a philosophical one, not a scientific. You can't test for it with physical means, and you can't be sure that anyone has it but yourself. But out of all the practical tests for it, this one is THE WORST! TrevorLSciAct (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with you there, the mirror test seams to be referenced in a few places on wikipedida with relation you self-awareness or consciousness. But it really makes no sense. What about animals that can't see, like bats, i'm sure they can recognize their own sound they make, however I don't see how this has any relation to any philosophical concepts. Animals may very well have a consciousness, but I agree with you, it can't be tested for, even in humans, let alone animals. --Spacemonkeynz (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I failed the mirror test :( - 220.233.180.14 (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems very subjective to me. Applejuicefool (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I always thought if an animal doesn't recognize itself in a mirror it means the animal doesn't understand how a mirror works not that its not self aware — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasputin's inflatable turnip (talk • contribs) 11:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Reflections
Dogs definitely differentiate between reflections.I have a dog with fascination for all creatures underwater,which grew from some time spent fishing.She just loves to wade around and look for things that live in the water and watch them at length presumably fascinated by why they don't drown.

She has often seen the reflection of birds in the sky in the water and looked up.

The mirror test article leaves you with the impression a dog could look in the water,see its own reflection,and think there was a dog living underwater.Simply not true at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartypans (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the test isn't to test if an animal is capable of using a mirror; rather, it is to test whether an animal understands that it is seeing itself in the mirror. 58.191.155.98 (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * might be going out on a limb here, but if an animal fully understands how to use a mirror, wouldn't they know that they are looking at themselve throught sheer process of elimination? If it's in a room by itself, and knows that a mirror reflects images, shouldn't it be able to see that there are no other animals in the room?  If it sees that no animals are in the room, and realizes that the mirror is just a reflection of what's around it, then wouldn't they by definition understand that they see their own reflection?  What else could it possible think the reflection was?  It realizes that other objects in the mirror correspond to objects around it, it would only make sense that it would do the same for its own reflection.
 * I think the issue is whether the animal understands that what they see is themself; you can't assume animals know how to deduce such things or even how to use the process of elimination. They could just be puzzled that they can't find the one animal they see, or be puzzled about how the animal they see seems to somehow be exactly where they are without actually touching them, and many other possibilities. Understanding how a mirror works isn't enough to recognize oneself. --TiagoTiago (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

but i think the real test comes from whether or not the animal could negotiate a "house of mirrors" you find at carnivals and fairs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A failure in logic
This whole idea is a logical fallacy. The assumption is that all animals would care if a there was a mark or dot upon them that they could see in a mirror. This is of course a false, unprovable assumption, and I think we can all be confident that not all animals would care about such a thing. 72.177.34.13 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not a true test of consciousness. Maybe more a test of whether an animal orientates itself visually. I have an old National Geographic with some B&W photos of a praying mantis which seemed to looking at itself in a mirror while preening. After reading this article and these comments, I am starting to wonder if it knew, on some level, that it was seeing its reflection. 153.2.246.31 (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the mirror test is not a true test of self-awareness. However, self-awareness is a difficult thing to assess (since we can't talk directly to most other species), and the mirror test comes closer to being a valid test for animals than most other feasible things that others have proposed. It is hard to escape the conclusion that great apes, dolphins, orcas and elephants have a lot of intelligence, are social, and probably have a good picture of themselves that is stored inside the head. It is progressively harder to make the same argument for the species that are on the border of "passing" the test - e.g. cats and dogs. Charlie Taylor, PhD 13:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylorchas (talk • contribs)
 * Personally I think the mirror test is stronger than self awareness. Without self awareneness it would be utterly impossible to recognize yourself in the mirror, because there is nothing to represent a self in the mind. If the mirror test fails it does not necessarily mean that there is no self awareness, as is pointed out in the article. So a pass of the mirror test is a positive for self awareness but a fail is not a negative, as the animal might not be able to interpret the reflection due to lack of visual intelligence or other reasons.Viridiflavus (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Number of species to pass the test
There is a disagreement between this page, the "Human" page, and the "Hominidae" (great apes) page as to species number. This page and the "Human" entry both say there are nine species that have passed the mirror test. On the "Human" page, the nine species are listed as "all the great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, bonobos), Bottlenose dolphins, Asian elephants, European Magpies and Orcas". The "Hominidae" page lists seven extant great ape species, including humans. If all the great apes pass the mirror test, that makes eleven species, not nine. Either "nine species" needs to be changed to "eleven species" in both this entry and the "Human" entry; or "all the great apes" needs to be changed to "some of the great apes" in the "Human" entry.Francomophone (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My Cat
Passes this test in as much as waiting at a glass door to be let outside, while I am standing behind her she watches my position via the reflection rather than watching me directly. She has no reaction to herself at all but I have observed her reacting to her almost identical sister on the other-side of the glass. Perhaps the test only has any real validity when applied to primates.

124.169.27.154 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

March 7, 2010: Petting my cat infront of the mirror, I put a sticker on his foreheard non-chalantly. He didn't notice the sticker at first since I was pretty sly. I pointed to the mirror at him. He sometiems looks at me in the mirror, so I know he recognizes that the mirror is just reflections. Well, when he noticed himself in the mirror he freaked out and shook his head to try to get the sticker off his forehead. He then jumped off my lap and tried to get the sticker off his head. My cat passes the mirror-test. I do spend a lot of time with him, and I do train people to achieve higher self-awareness professionally. Score one for nurture over nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashroney (talk • contribs) 05:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My cat is the same way. He sometimes looks at me in the mirror and then apparently pre-computes where to look at me when not using the mirror. I am guessing he is using relational object awareness. He might have reacted once or two as a kitten but as he got older he learned to use the mirror as a tool to see things behind him or at angles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.210.81 (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your house cat experiments lack a control condition. That being said, I thought this statement from the wiki article was a bit ridiculous: "Also, since their flexibility allows them to view any part of their body, it's not hard to understand why they wouldn't really be all that interested in a mere reflection. . ." As Ashoney implies above, cats can't see their own heads.24.215.118.5 (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Rachel

Hello, this is a fascinating topic. Here is a link to a video which shows a cat reacting to it's reflection in the mirror. It seems to be exploring it's ears, something it can only see in the reflection.

https://www.facebook.com/uniladmag/videos/2339095532969542/

Barn owls
I have removed barn owls from the list of animals that pass the mirror test. They seem unlikely candidates to me and there is no citation. I wonder if they were added as a joke. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Mirror test of self awareness and use of a mirror.
These seem to me be two slightly different concepts. It is one thing to understand that a mirror lets you see what is behind you but another to understand that it is a reflection of yourself that you see in a mirror. Should we try to separate these concepts in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Three species of gibbon pass the mirror test
A paper published in the International Journal of Comparative Psychology (2009) clearly shows that at least 3 species of gibbon passed the mirror test and seemed to be capable of self-recognition. The named species are: the siamang (Symphalangus syndactylus; in the article it is mentioned as Hylobates syndactylus), the yellow-cheeked gibbon (Nomascus gabriellae; in the article it is mentioned as Hylobates gabriellae), and the northern white-cheeked gibbon (Nomascus leucogenys; in the article it is mentioned as Hylobates leucogenys).

The article can be found here: http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/zoowww/personal/heschl/pdfs/Siamangs%20recognize%20their%20mirror%20image.pdf

The wikipedia entry about the mirror test should be modified to include those 3 species.

CostaDax (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)CostaDax


 * They do not pass the classic face mark test but do show distinct signs of self-recognition in a mirror according to your source. Why not add something to this effect yourself, citing the source? This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all thanks for the response. You're right about them not passing the classic face mark test, but according to the paper there's evidence to suggest that those three species are capable of recognizing themselves in the mirror. That is also the objective of the classic face mark test, isn't it? The methodoly is different but the end result is the same. In any case, I would add something myself (as you suggest), but I'm not experienced in making editions or additions to wikipedia entries yet. Maybe a more experienced user could take up the task. Thanks again for the feedback! I hope someone decides to make the appropriate addition.

CostaDax (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)CostaDax


 * Someone? Why not you? Be bold and just edit the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was bold and edited out the reference. Gibbons are lesser apes, not great apes. ~PAV5150 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAV5150 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Correction, I placed them on the next line with no reference due to a dead link. PAV5150talk

The paper about the gibbons can be found here: http://www.uni-graz.at/zoowww/staff/Heschl/pdfs/Siamangs%20recognize%20their%20mirror%20image.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.211.139 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

mirror test for animal self recognition
The mirror test as an absolute test for self recognition is in question. For example, see article by Maggie Koerth-Baker (Scientific American, November 29, 2010, www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=kids-and-animals-who-fail-classic-mirror):

"Kids (and Animals) Who Fail Classic Mirror Tests May Still Have Sense of Self"

Knowing that mammal’s brains map their external body parts (mouth, arms, legs, genitals, flank, paws, hands, etc.) it is difficult to believe that they do not have self recognition sans mirror. I cannot easily imagine, for example, that some primate or feline grooming itself does not recognize that the part it is grooming, say its tail, is part of itself.

I assume that the question of mirror recognition in some species depends on whether or not their attention can be trained onto an image of themselves in a mirror, not on whether they automatically recognize a mirror image without training.

For all practical purposes, the image may have no natural use for which the animal has adapted, yet it can be trained to recognize a mirror image in action; in other cases, the animal really may be limited to regarding its own image as another of its own kind. Yet another possibility: the animal does not care about its image.

Another problem in protocol is one of conceit—-namely that intellectual abilities/potentials that we exhibit, which arise from our relative abundance of neocortex compared to other creatures, implies that the other creatures are unable to do anything that we can do intellectually. This is the counterpart of the tendency to make anthropomorphic claims.

We commonly assume that no chimpanzee is endowed with enough neural resources to author either fantastic claims such as found in “Dianetics” (L. Ron Hubbard, 1950) or something more realistic, like “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” (Galileo Galilei, 1632). But we cannot conclude from this that lack of symbolic language renders the chimpanzee incapable of reason or delusion. A similar situation exists for other mammals with cerebral cortex.

We need a working definition of “mirror image self recognition” by which to judge test subjects. That working definition must then be critiqued for what it cannot show. (There are currently in comments for this article a great deal of subjective judgment, and it appears to me that two observers can have opposite judgments of the same event, e.g., a cat or dog looking in a mirror and turning away.)

Unfortunately it is very difficult to make a working definition when all we have to work with our pets, and no brain scanning equipment. For those that do have the equipment, live scanning is a very expensive operation, requiring much expertise. We might want to run a series of face photos past a creature trained to pay attention to a video screen and try to determine if it can recognize its own face from among others. If this were possible for cats or dogs, we would have to take in mind that both of these creatures recognize others by scent, rather than assume there is only one way of recognizing self or other.

The mirror test is a simplistic approach to a very complex topic in animal cognition. Perhaps some clever readers can find a rational approach that does not require neural scanning technology. But so far the issue seems to be far more complex than a simple mirror test can reveal.

I cannot reasonably expect a cat, like the one I held up to the mirror, to care about a piece of paper pasted on its forehead. The cat appeared to be looking at the images of people in the mirror. So what can I make of this? Nothing for sure can be concluded. The mirror test may be revealing in some cases, but it is not likely to reveal anything in others.

Araktsu (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think that anyone thinks the mirror test is perfect or that it is relevant to all species but when done well, the mirror test should have controls to demonstrate that the observed effect is likely to be due to self-recognition. See the Magpie reference for a good example of a well-controlled test. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

___________________________________________________ February 26, 2011

The magpie video is impressive. I wonder what motivates the animal to remove the mark? (1) Because the mirror image does not match previous image, e.g., a non-self object, perhaps a parasite? (2) Or because it does not match what a magpie expects to see on another magpie? (3) Or a combination of both? There is no question as to whether or not the bird is thinking, neocortex or not, as far as can be told from the video evidence.

Here is an interesting link, which was up as of Feb. 26, 2011:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050204115732.htm

NIH/National Institute Of Mental Health (2005, February 4). Birds Brainier Than Previously Thought. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 26, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com¬ /releases/2005/02/050204115732.htm Araktsu (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Animals that fail
I have restored this, recently deleted, section pending further discussion. I can see the logic for removing it but feel that we should keep something about animals that fail. Obviously not just a list but a discussion of what different animals do when presented with a mirror. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The section gives an arrogant impression to the reader, at least for me. The section is also unnecessary. Why create a whole section just to say that all other animals do not pass? This information can easily be incorporated in the "Animals that have been observed to pass" section. Testtaker12 (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree but it could be expanded to show what other animals do when confronted with a mirror. Strictly speaking, animals that pass similar tests, thus showing some understanding of what a mirror does, should be included in this section.  Yet other animals, such as cats and dogs, see another animal in the mirror but do not seem to understand that they can see themselves. That is why I put back the dog picture, it shows a failure to pass the mirror test but still an interesting reaction to a mirror.


 * We might also include something about animals that predominantly or exclusively use a different sense from sight (bats for example) and thus might be expected to fail the mirror test even if they did have a degree of self awareness. A negative result is not always uninteresting.


 * As it is now the section is pretty useless but I think there is room for expansion into a useful section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Pigs reference
The reference for pigs doesn't address self-awareness at all, rather, it just demonstrates that pigs can adapt to the presence of a mirror and its properties when finding food (that is, the virtual location of the food is not the actual location of the food). This article is restricted to a specific self-awareness test. Indeed, the authors even mention a female pig charging at the mirror, hardly a positive result! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.154.96 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed Pigs from the "Animals that have been observed to pass" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.154.96 (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Reference also says traditional mirror test is unfit for pigs because pigs are always marked with dirt from rolling in mud 205.206.75.3 (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Octopus
I remember reading a few years ago that the octopus has an intermediate reaction to mirrors, neither seeming to quite comprehend nor to be unaware that it's not just a normal interaction with another octopus. I can't find what I read now, but if there's something more than media distortion behind that news report, it would be interesting to add a little information here about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
The entire Criticism subsection is based on 1 study from Germany of 45 kids from 1996.

I'm not sure this one source warrants that depth of coverage unless there are really no other papers critical of the mirror test (which I know offhand is not the case).

&mdash;Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 09:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a clear case of WP:UNDUE. Maybe we should wait a week in case anybody shows up with a good source criticizing the mirror test, and if not, remove this section.  Lova Falk     talk   09:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look, I'm sure there are plenty.– &mdash;Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 11:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha! I missed your double negation and thought you meant there were no other papers critical of the mirror test. It will be interesting to read your edits. Face-smile.svg  Lova Falk     talk   11:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed in reading that the Mirror test section contained a great deal of redundancy, as well as one duplicated citation — possibly all leftover fallout from the Rouge test merge. So, ahead of any possible expansion by Manicjedi or other editors, I pared it down to more streamlined version of about half the length. This did involve removing significant detail, in addition to redundancies, but I feel that's an appropriate level of focus on a single study. As was suggested, the previous detailed account smacked of WP:UNDUE.
 * Please note, however, that I am not a topic expert. My goal in this was to act as copy editor, and re-work the text without unduly altering its meaning. I hope I have  achieved that, but if anyone sees any issues as a result of my editing then please correct. — FeRD_NYC (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you did a good job.  Lova Falk     talk   10:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Merged with Rouge Test
I merged the Rouge test article into this one. There was already a discussion on the talk page of that article. I tried to fit it in with the existing article which I extensively rewrote, but there are still some redundancies of information. I also think the layout is a bit awkward and the Rouge Test's subsections should probably be merged in better with the general article's sections. &mdash;Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 20:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Picture captions for dog and baboon.
The captions for the dog and baboon picture use the term 'mirror test' but we have no evidence that these are part of mirror tests, in fact they look not to be as there is no sign of any kind of mark in the animals. I suggest that the captions are changed to 'Dog looking at reflection in mirror' etc.


 * See WP:PERTINENCE. If it looks like a mirror test, then you can use it.  We supply illustrations to show readers what it looks like, not to provide photographic proof that it actually happened.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that we can probably use the picture, but we shouldn't have captions that make false statements, if that is what is happening here. Looie496 (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against using the pictures but, as Looie496 said, we must not have misleading captions. I have changed them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't really have any reason to believe that these are misleading captions, especially for the photo of the baboon. The information on the image of the baboon at Commons says "The mirror test - a Baboon looking at at his own reflection", which suggests that this is part of an actual test, even if the mark is not visible to us at this distance and angle.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hugely Tendentious
Almost everything in the article and in the talk page has a very clear bias towards animals being as intelligent and/or self-aware as can be reasonably assumed (and frequently even moreso than what is reasonable to assume). Every single "criticism" I can find in either place falls into the category of "test is too conservative" and "there are probably way more animals that exhibit X or Y attribute than the test identifies".

Yes, of course it's valid to suggest, for example, that the test (regardless of what it is testing) does not well account for animals whose primary sensory faculties are not sight. That demonstrates unjustified bias against, for example, the rhinoceros, which is a relatively intelligent animal with poor eyesight.

On the other hand, I don't see anyone entertaining the notion (as objective scientists and philosophers should) that we're inferring too much from this or any other test. We're just hoping that their recognition of a tactile sensation that is simultaneous with visual feedback from a reflective surface signifies some profound cognizance, a phenomenon for which we have no direct corroboration. In other words, people are so afraid of committing a type II error that they run the risk of committing a type I error.

I understand the appeal of believing that fluffy sits there and thinks whimsical thoughts about himself, the creatures around him, maybe even about the near future, etc, but if it causes you to gain huge confidence in the incredibly speculative and abstract, you're not thinking soundly. I've seen this objection raised in papers and in professional literature, but any time the subject is discussed on the internet amongst laypeople, without exception, every single poster errs on the side of anthropomorphism. I'm talking about skeptics forums, hardcore science-geek boards, etc.. so many of the most hardened self-proclaimed mythbusters fall in love with this idea.

There are a few topics which are incredibly difficult to feature in objective discussion on the internet, and this one fits right in there with religion/atheism, politics, Miley Cyrus, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.192.196 (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're saying that the Criticism section should include more discussion of doubts about the validity or usefulness of the test, I would agree. But it's important to avoid "original synthesis" here.  In other words, any material we add should reflect the published views of reputable authors and should reference the sources.  If you know the literature well enough to do that, I encourage you to edit the article.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed split
I am proposing that this article be split into Mirror test and Mirror test (animals). There seems to be sufficient information for Mirror test (animals) but I am unsure about whether there is sufficient for a humans only article. Is there someone out there who might be willing to expand the human article if all the non-human animal information was split off?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Humans are Animals the split as suggested does not make sense. Davblo2 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there that much to say on the mirror test for humans? The mirror test was intended for use on animals, we already knew humans pass. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see a lot more has been added on the rouge test for children. What is you reason for wanting to split the article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Martin. Thanks for your interest.  I think you have really answered your own question.  As adult humans with experience of mirrors, we know that the reflection we see is a reflection of ourselves; this is a given.  The mirror test is used in humans to detect the age at which self-recognition occurs (please correct me if I am wrong - human experimental psychology is not my strength).  This is an intra-species use of the mirror test.  However, the same can not be said of non-human animals.  The mirror test is usually applied to adults of different species so the purpose is to detect inter-species differences.  I feel the article should be split to allow expansion of these two interpretations and uses.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. Much of modern psychology was inspired by Greek mythology. In a certain sense, the first human being who took the mirror test was Narcissus, hence the term, narcissism. Narcissus, of course failed the original mirror test miserably because of extreme self-awareness. There is nothing in the modern psychological mirror test that can detect extreme self-awareness; preening oneself (male or female) in front of a mirror does not count. In other words, there is not much content to add to the human mirror test that would justify a split. (sunnasutta) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnasutta (talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok. I think this might be a case of whether we are a "splitter" or a "lumper"  My own feeling is that there would be enough information on humans out there for a stand-alone article and it should be split from this one.  However, nobody has come forward to do this, yet.  I think until sufficient information on humans is available on the page to warrant a split, the differences between humans and non-humans needs to be amphasised.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the need to split this article because humans are the only species to pass the test so thoroughly that their ability to pass need not be questioned in practice. All other animals can be disseminated as such within this article. The article could perhaps more emphatically make this distinction. Failure in the test environment in animal species challenges the conditions of experimentation and well as the reliability and significance of the theory in general. Failure in human subjects, however, represents an exception to the population, and rather than discounting the theory, signals a malfunction in the subject's cognitive and/or sensory faculties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marloweand Son (talk • contribs) 21:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel that the article should be reworded to combine humans and animals into one group. Perhaps turn the Rogue Test heading into Mirror Test in Humans with an AKA in the body. Ndm13 (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Orangutan - need a source
At present, we have no source showing that Orangutans pass the test. It would seem likely that they do so I have not removed them yet but we do need a source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Magpie video
Thanks to whoever put up the magpie video. It is very convincing. The magpie not only tries to remove the mark but keeps looking back in the mirror to see if it has gone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that was me - it is rather convincing isn't it. I can't believe that Magpies will be the only birds to pass the test - I guess the furure will tell. DrChrissy (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, one might expect other corvid species to pass. Ravens, for example. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ants
The mention of ants as a species that pass the test is very interesting and somewhat surprising. The source seems to show good testing methodology but provides what might be called statistical evidence for self awareness in ants. Ants certainly deserve to get a mention but I wonder I am not sure is the is good enough to list tem under animals that pass. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I too was very surprised when I found the paper. It was very late when I added it to the article, but I felt it was Original Research to discount it simply on the basis of being "unexpected", and the researcher's statements are certainly verifiable.  I'll do a bit more research on it. DrChrissy (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm having difficulties with the source referenced for that statement (Cammaerts, Marie-Claire; Cammaerts, Roger (2015). "Are ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) capable of self recognition?" (PDF). Journal of Science 5 (7): 521–532). The URL gives a "not found" error, perhaps because the server is down, and Google Scholar does not find any article with that title. Also, "Journal of Science" is listed as a questionable publication at http://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/. Looie496 (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am looking at it right now - http://www.journalofscience.net/File_Folder/521-532%28jos%29.pdf - thanks for the info about the reliability of the journal. DrChrissy (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Very odd. I'm consistently unable to connect to that site -- although I don't have connectivity problems for any other site I know of. Looie496 (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Looie496 Very odd! Would you like me to email the .pdf? DrChrissy (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @Looie496 (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have sent it. Hope you overcome your accessibility issues soon. DrChrissy (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * have looked very closely at the article now. It appears to be well planned, executed and analysed.  If it were to come across my desk for review, I can find no reason to reject it.  The English is "idiosyncratic" but is still very clear.  The authors have a long-standing history in the behaviour of ants and have published in the top journals of this subject.  To my mind, the article appears to be a strong piece of stand-alone research.  But, the source as being suitable for WP is a bit more complex.  It is clearly a primary source and despite looking even for trivial newspaper reports, I have not been able to find a secondary source - possibly, it has been published only very recently and the popular press have not found it yet.  I also accept from Looie496 that the journal is on a list of "undesirable".  In short, the journal is really the only thing wrong with this source.  There are many statements in this article that are based on primary sources - while I appreciate this is not the very best method of editing, it is often necessary in animal behaviour.  It would be inconsistent to reject the ant paper only because it is a primary source as there are so many others like it.  Perhaps there is a way of tagging it to alert editors to search for a more robust or secondary source because it is such an extraordinary claim. DrChrissy (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is frustrating because I find the statement very implausible -- the visual capabilities of ants are very limited -- but it's hard to engage without being able to read the paper. Looie496 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that my objection was simply on the basis that it seemed extremely implausible. I think I would say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until we have confirmation from a secondary source could we just downgrade the claim a little from 'Animals that pass' to some new heading? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please believe me, I share your concern, but having read the paper, it is very convincing that they pass the MSR test. I've just added a reference to an earlier negative finding with elephants, so we are now in the realm of only 1 of 5 elephants tested in total showing MSR...should this mean this species is placed in the "fail" or "pass" section?  I appreciate your concern, but if memory serves me correctly, invertebrates such as wasps and lobsters can visually recognise conspecifics.  Perhaps you would like to suggest a new heading for the ants? DrChrissy (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now looked over the paper; thanks for emailing it. I find myself in difficulties here.  If this was a medical article, that source would clearly not meet MEDRS.  I generally advocate applying the MEDRS referencing principles to all areas of science, but I admit that I'm not 100% consistent about it.  I am influenced here by the fact that I just plain flat out don't believe those results.  There is a huge difference between recognizing conspecifics (which many invertebrates can do, though ants do it mainly by chemical cues) and recognizing oneself in a mirror.  If ants commonly encountered reflections of themselves I might believe such an ability could evolve, but I can't think of any situation where that would happen. Looie496 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I take your point that many invertebrates are capable of conspecific recognition - I was using this as an indication of the visual acuity of some invertebrates, not as an argument in support of passing the MSR test. I'm not sure about the strength of the argument that MSR would not evolve in animals which did not encounter their reflection often - what about chimps, orangs or elephants not seeing their reflection (unless you are going to suggest reflections in water, but this would raise the question of why MSR has not evolved in other animals that drink water).  If you were to read the paper again and instead of the subjects being ants they were canines, would you find the results more easy to accept? If so, why?  There are already some surprising results from this test.  Why do apes pass the test but monkeys fail unless they are trained?  Why are magpies different from pigeons in this respect?  Why can birds MSR at all - they have no neo-cortex? DrChrissy (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we could have a section called 'Self-recognition in insects'. The evidence is good but it may be a different 'mechanism'.  We could then include more of the paper. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As an aside, unless the sources specifically say otherwise, I think we should use the term self-recognition for what the test shows. This is less contentious than 'self-awareness', or 'consciousness'. It is also easier to believe for ants. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @Martin, I have been very careful (I hope) to not over-extend the findings. The ants certainly passed a test which has the label of "MRS test".  I do not think I have claimed this is "self-recognition" per se - there may be other explanations, as yet unknown (to me at least).  At the moment, the ant paper is listed under a heading of "Animals that have passed the test" and a sub-heading of "Invertebrates".  This is arguably less contentious (more parsimonious) than your suggestion of 'Self-recognition in insects' as it gives no assessment of the recognition/awareness/consciousness of the ants whatsoever - it simply states they have passed a test. DrChrissy (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to confuse things. My comment about self-recognition was aimed at the whole article.  T should have started a new section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's fine. I had intended to go through the article and make sure Occam's razor had been wielded.  There obviously needs to be discussion that the test is used as a putative indicator of self-awareness and consciousness, but I will have a look at other comments as well. DrChrissy (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should be cautious not to report a single primary study's finding as a fact unless it has been generally accepted in the relevant literature.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if you were to adhere 100% to that approach you might as well wipe off half the information on animals and animal behaviour on the project. I have not seen the information on Giant pandas reported elsewhere - should we be deleting that.  Are we being guilty of speciesism here? DrChrissy (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speciecism is not a problem. If Pandas and ants want a different kind of representation they can make their own wikipedia. Also we do not necessarily have to wipe all information cited only to one primary source, but at the very least we should mention that that is the case. For example instead of writing "ants have passed the mirror test" we might write "one study has reported that ants passed the mirror test". But honestly we need to be cautious with this stuff and not just uncritically report claims that fly in the face of most of the assumptions of the literature. Ants are definitely not generally thought to be selfaware by cognitive scientists, and reporting the single study that claims they are, seems to me to be givina fringe view undue weight.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Really don't think this should be included in this wiki article. At least there should be a speculation section so its clear this is not an accepted fact at large in the scientific community. The publication is really not that great, despite the acknowledgements the publication is from a recognized predatory open access journal. This means that the rigour of peer review will likely not have taken place. Likely the authors were laughed out of anything reasonable with the premise of the paper with *very* weak evidence. -- MattOates (Ulti) 16:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I do think the ant finding should be mentioned somewhere in the article, since it does extend the conventional wisdom. As of today the article does not mention ants. The researchers' suggestions to test bees and to test ant species with better eyesight (more ommatidia per eye) are appropriate. The authors say ants passed the mirror test, not that they have self-awareness. If people still have trouble finding the article, I found it at http://journalofscience.net/doiprocess/MjY4a2FsYWk= Kim9988 (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The ant paper's finding have now been accepted several times in the literature. A major secondary source is the 2017 Annual Review of Anthropology p. 366. It has also been accepted by spider researchers in Animal Behavior and Cognition p.413, a monkey researcher in a Swiss PhD, p.10 , and several papers from non-biologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim9988 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Animals that pass?
The discussion above raises the more general question of whether we should have a section called 'Animals that pass' at all. The actual test is different in every case and it is not quite clear what 'pass' means. In the case of humans it means that nearly all humans over a certain age show indisputable evidence of self-recognition and in other cases it means that a few individuals, in particular circumstances showed signs of self-recognition. I do not think that many of the sources us the terms 'pass' and 'fail' so perhaps we should not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that if we do it should not be based on primary sources, but on secondary sources such as literature reviews.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When editing, I have been taking spontaneous touching of the mark as a 'pass' as Gallup indicated in the original description of the method. I have highlighted "spontaneous" because I feel this is critical; there are studies on monkeys and pigeons where the animals have been trained to peck at dots or spots and then passed the test, but to my mind (and Gallup's), this is another level of cognitive ability.  If we are to avoid "pass" and "fail", what would you suggest? DrChrissy (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a perfectly reasonable way of doing things but it could be argued that you are deciding what 'passes' and what does not; the sources themselves do not use this terminology. In other words, editors here are applying their own significant (excessive?) levels of judgement on top of the statements made in the sources.  Rather than separating the animals into pass and fail, could we not have a section called, for example, 'Animals that show some self-recognition' in which we include the current 'passes' but have a little more detail from the sources?  The biggest gap is still, in my opinion, between humans and all other animals.


 * Yes, 'untrained' pick activity is important but this is mentioned in many of the sources so I agree that we are free to use it ourselves as a listing criterion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Several of the major references do use the term "pass" e.g. Suddendorf and Collier-Baker (2006), Plotnik et al. (2006), Prior et al. (2008) (...I only checked 5). However, would you feel more comfortable with "Animals that demonstrate MSR" and "Animals that do not demonstrate MSR"? DrChrissy (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the problem is the terminology, but the uncritical extrapolating of a single experiment in a primary source to en entire species or even higher level taxonomic groups.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments above regarding "uncritical" extrapolation - I have been very critical in my assessment of the paper. It is worth bearing in mind that the ant study used 12 of one species (11 passed the MSR test), 5 of another species (all passed) and 7 of another (all passed).  So far, there have been only 2 studies on elephants. One study tested 2 elephants and both failed.  Another tested 3 and only 1 passed.  There are many statements in the literature that say elephants have passed the test, but in reality, this is only one animal in one study.  I have tried to work this into the article in a critical non-extrapolation. It is also worth bearing in mind that in the single magpie study, 5 birds were tested but only 2 showed MSR.  It is frequently stated that magpies have passed the test. DrChrissy (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But we shouldn't rely on the critical extrapolations of wikipedia editors either. This selection has to be made by reliable sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Maunus Please indicate which sources you consider to be unreliable, and why. DrChrissy (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not your personal extrapolations of primary sources. The best would be literature reviews of the field in peer reviewed journals.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think, 'Animals that demonstrate mirror self recognition' would be a better heading or, better still, 'Animals in which mirror self recognition has been observed'. Then we can indicate the degree to which MSR has been observed for each species. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely sure what you mean by "the degree to which MRS has been observed" - the animal either spontaneously touches the mark, or it does not. Could you clarify please. DrChrissy (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just what you say above, 'in the single magpie study, 5 birds were tested but only 2 showed MSR' for example. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure why we would want to include this information, but of course you are free to edit the article. DrChrissy (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it is at least objectively accurate, and doesnt rely on our own (your own) judgment of the significance of the finding. That is how policy tells us to use primary sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I was getting at. I do not think it would do any harm anyway. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Maunus You seem to be suggesting I am doing something wrong somewhere. Please could you be specific about what your concern is and I will address this.  Please also note that "significance" has a highly specific meaning in science - I usually use it in that way. DrChrissy (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been quite specific in what I think you are doing wrong: I think you are using primary sources in a way that is not in line with policy and which risks misrepresenting the state of knowledge by over-representing studies and results that may not have been accepted by the academic community.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which source/s are you referring to? What edit/s do you propose I make? DrChrissy (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The "mirror stage" is irrelevant pseudoscience.
Under the section: [Animals that have passed...>Homo sapiens], there is a reference to the psychoanalytical "mirror stage". Lacan's mirror stage doesn't belong in an article that is devoted to a scientifically validated test of cognition. Furthermore, even within Lacanian theory, the mirror stage is not principally about the actual neuro-developmental event of self-recognition, but rather how this event psychologically affects the individual. It has nothing to do with neuroscience or comparative psychology. A more relevant link might be to articles on "Theory of Mind" or "Self Awareness". Lacan's mirror stage has never been found to be the least bit scientifically valid. Finally, the citations that are attached to that sentence do not have anything to do with psychoanalysis or Lacan's "mirror stage". -24.20.45.200 (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.45.200 (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we should remove this? I would be in favour of that. DrChrissy (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that Lacan's theory is irrelevant to this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Units?

 * The frequency of touching increased to 4-10 with the mirror present compared to only 1 when the mirror had been removed.

4-10 what exactly? Makes absolutely no sense.122.149.143.246 (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I presume, per (unspecified) unit of time. As it is only the relative (to the non-mirror) frequency of touching with the mirror, the unit of time is not that important, although I agree that it would have been better if this had been stated. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Magpies and jackdaws.
We currently have:

Those [magpies] that received a black sticker, invisible against the black neck feathers, did not react.[7] In 2014, a study on jackdaws contested these findings, suggesting that the magpies may have perceived the stickers tactilely.[22]

The magpie test included black stickers specifically to exclude the possiblity that the birds detected the stickers by feel (tactilely!). The findings of the jackdaw researchers therefore seem irrelevant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The jackdaw researchers seemed not to understand the significance of the black (invisible) stickers as they say, 'both sticker-directed actions and sticker removal were performed with a similar frequency in both the cardboard (control) and the mirror conditions'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will remove this unless anyone objects. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have just re-read both articles and I concur the jackdaw researchers did not seem to understand the significance of the black (Control) stickers in the magpie study. By the way, many birds are visually sensitive in the UV spectrum.  Most indoor lights do not emit UV, yet these birds were tested indoors.  It is quite possible that in both studies, the vision of the stickers was "un-natural" and therefore any species differences were exaggerated. DrChrissy (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Invertebrates
I agree with the IP that this section should be removed, because the source the section is based on does not appear to be reliable. It is not so much because it is a primary source (there is a current fetish on Wikipedia for secondary "review" sources, sometimes themselves thoroughly unreliable – some balance will hopefully be restored as the dust that has been kicked up settles and editors can see more clearly). As the IP pointed out, the Indian Journal of Science is on Beall's List of Predatory open access publishers. And to date, no one else has regarded the article as of sufficient merit to cite it themselves. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to the talk page (note to the IP, this is the way it should be done). If memory serves me correctly, I added this reference only days after it was published, hoping it would be picked up by secondary sources.  I think at the time, I was also less aware of what predatory journals were.  I hate to be thinking that by deleting other established researchers' work we are effectively saying "It is a bunch of lies", but I think in this case, "remarkable claims need remarkable sources" should prevail.  I will delete the section after posting this. DrChrissy (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What about now? Or are those citing also in ureliable journals? Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Rhesus Macaque Monkeys: Pass or not?
In the introduction to the article, it states that Rhesus Macaque Monkeys have passed the MSR test, but below it says they have not, yet show similar results to those who have. So which is it? Jadiker (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well picked up. I think the problem here is that the macaques did not pass the "mark test" in which the face is marked with paint or a sticker.  They did, however, use the mirrors to inspect hidden parts of their bodies, which some researchers believe indicates self-recognition, but they did not pass the Mark test per se.  I've removed rhesus macaques from the Introduction to reflect this. DrChrissy (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Humans are great apes
"As of 2016, only humans, great apes, a single Asiatic elephant, dolphins and orcas, and the Eurasian magpie have passed the MSR test." Shouldn't the "humans" be deleted from the list since humans are included as great apes? You could say "great apes including humans" or "humans, other great apes, ..." if you want to make sure humans are mentioned, but the current phrasing is a redundancy. Sowelilitokiemu Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Another good catch - thanks very much, I will make the edit. DrChrissy (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments
I'm new to wikipedia editing, but I do have some comments: - I think these two sections should be merged: "Animals that may exhibit MSR" with "Other animals' reaction to mirrors". - Although not the traditional mirror-test, this could be referenced to Siamang Gibbons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh001HjOteA - In the Implications section, it should be noted that humans are animals too, and this generalizes non-human animals too much "Animals,[41] young children,[19] and people who have their sight restored after being blind from birth,[18] sometimes react to their reflection in the mirror as though it were another individual" - In the "Criticisms of the test" section, the part "Another criticism is that the very nature of the test might be a doubtful way to prove self-awareness. For example: In a group of linked computers, a working computer may readily recognise its own system. However, there is little evidence that the computer is "self aware."" should have references. Lauroflorin (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Lauroflorin and welcome to wikipedia. Thanks very much for your useful comments.
 * My own view is that the two sections should not be merged. Almost all animals will react to a mirror, some of them with aggression because they probably perceive the reflection as another animal.  In the classic MSR, it is believed (by some) that the animal is perceiving the reflection as itself.  To my mind, these are conceptually very different and should remain separate.
 * Of course I agree humans are animals. However, it is an ongoing question on WP about referring to humans and non-human animals. Many people on WP refer to "humans" and "animals" as being separate and that is considered to be acceptable.  I personally hate this, but this is WP.
 * Regarding the Siamangs - do you have another source. Youtube is not usually considered a reliable source (seeWP:RS).  Similarly, if you have sources to the humans and the criticisms of the test, please add these to the article.
 * Happy editing. DrChrissy (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Criticisms
I have once again removed a part of the criticism section that does not involve a criticism, but rather a description of the paradigms used. The reference relating to this discusses the use of non-tactile markings in all test except for the ones involving dolphins, not as a criticism but as a comment on the absence of the tactile sensation separate from the visual cues in the mirror. This information is relevant to the paradigm, and should be placed on the page, but it is not relevant in the criticism section. The authors suggested that the use of tactile marker may provide additional cues that aid in the focus of attention to the visual area in the mirror, leading to greater incidences of self-recognition. This is exactly the opposite to what was written in this section, so on those grounds it is wrong to suggest that the use of tactile marker would be a confound since the source isn't making that point at all.137.111.13.204 (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Update- I have fixed up the wording and moved this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mirror_test&diff=667524812&oldid=667499648) to a more appropriate section.137.111.13.204 (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I propose the creation of a new category on the article
I believe there is a certain need for the creation of a new category where we can put animals with inconclusive results from the mirror test, this category would include gorillas and rheus monkeys among a few others, as the article is redacted right now there is a certain degree of implication that these animals are not on at the same degree of cognition as others, which is something that we simply have not proved yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.7.93.149 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)